Discovery Pack
This is the first pack Max Connect sees. Its job is to start the discovery process: state the routefinding thesis, disclose the evidence, show the podcast briefing, ask for missing material, and turn partner knowledge into a sharper MAS proposition.
This is the first discovery cut
Max Connect is at the start of discovery, not the end of proposition design. No reader has seen a prior version. V1 opens the room and gives the partners useful work to do next.
The current evidence says one thing with enough force to test: MAS migration is difficult for smaller and under-supported Maximo estates. The commercial question is whether Max Connect has the access, authority and product shape to become the routefinding layer before implementation begins. [MAXCONNECT-PROBLEM-001] [MAXCONNECT-PAIN-001] [MAXCONNECT-TEAM-001]
Every load-bearing claim stays tagged.
V1 separates researched product mechanics from commercial claims that still need partner proof. Green waits for partner and account evidence.
Current state: 54 ATOMS · 29 RED · 25 AMBER. The strongest pack copy is still an invitation to verify, not a claim of proof.
What V1 is saying out loud
These are the statements the first review should test. Each one names the current evidence status.
MAS is a platform transition, not a routine Maximo upgrade.
OpenShift, integrations, AppPoints and data readiness create confusion before implementation starts.
Smaller Maximo estates look like the underserved segment, but this is still a red commercial claim until named accounts confirm it.
The first product should make the route legible: readiness, migration map, AppPoints model, partner matching, or education.
Rich Barber and Andrew Carrie are the fastest route to account truth, not a nice-to-have expert loop.
V2 should cut weak persuasion and promote only account-backed claims.
The first product is routefinding
Legacy Maximo to MAS changes hosting, integration patterns, licensing, data readiness, user adoption and partner choice. That creates buying confusion before it creates implementation demand. [MAXCONNECT-TECH-001] [MAXCONNECT-TECH-006] [MAXCONNECT-MONEY-002]
Max Connect should start where the decision is least well served: independent MAS routefinding for organisations with real asset dependence and weak coverage from IBM or large implementation partners. [MAXCONNECT-PERSONA-001] [MAXCONNECT-OPP-001]
“The first paid wedge is not implementation. It is making the MAS route legible enough for a smaller Maximo estate to choose its next move with confidence.”
Max Connect working thesis · atom-backed synthesisThe thesis survives only if these four checks move from assumption to evidence.
The evidence is useful, but not finished
The atom ledger gives V1 enough structure to start discovery. It does not give V1 permission to overstate demand. Product mechanics are stronger than buyer proof.
The evidence splits cleanly: MAS complexity is amber. Reachability, willingness to pay and wedge priority are red until partner evidence arrives.
What is already strong enough to use, and what still needs proof.
| Area | Current signal | Representative atoms | V2 proof needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platform shift | Amber: MAS changes the technical operating base. | MAXCONNECT-TECH-001, 004, 006 | Source confirmation already useful; account impact still needed. |
| Integration/data pain | Amber/red: legacy integrations, dirty data and cutover are real pains but account frequency is unknown. | MAXCONNECT-TECH-003, 007, 014; MAXCONNECT-PAIN-002 | Named examples, screenshots, migration plans, failure anecdotes. |
| Licensing/AppPoints | Amber: AppPoints create planning risk. | MAXCONNECT-MONEY-002, 003, 004, 005, 006 | Pricing artefacts, overage/lockout examples, buyer language. |
| Smaller-estate target | Red: plausible but not yet proved. | MAXCONNECT-PERSONA-001; MAXCONNECT-MONEY-008 | Account list and willingness-to-pay evidence. |
| Channel/community | Amber: events and user groups exist. | MAXCONNECT-CHANNEL-001, 002, 003, 004 | Access route, content angle, introduction path, event timing. |
Representative atoms behind the V1 working thesis. The full index remains at /atoms/.
| ID | Description | Sources | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAXCONNECT-TECH-001 | MAS is a platform shift from legacy Maximo Asset Management to Maximo Manage inside a broader suite. | RESEARCH | 2026-06-12 |
| MAXCONNECT-TECH-004 | MAS requires Red Hat OpenShift, changing the operating base for legacy customers. | RESEARCH | 2026-06-12 |
| MAXCONNECT-MONEY-002 | AppPoints create a buying risk because licensing uses a shared pool with role, access and overage implications. | RESEARCH | 2026-06-12 |
| MAXCONNECT-PERSONA-002 | MAS migration creates a multi-stakeholder sale across economic buyers, technical owners, admins, users and partners. | SYNTHESIS | 2026-06-12 |
| MAXCONNECT-TEAM-001 | Rich Barber and Andrew Carrie are the named validation route for Maximo relationships and account reality. | PRIMARY | 2026-06-13 |
| MAXCONNECT-OPP-011 | Named-account reachability is the main commercial unknown before any route becomes a sales motion. | SPECULATION | 2026-06-13 |
What the MAS decision actually contains
The discovery pack needs to explain the decision, not just the market. MAS forces a customer to answer platform, integration, licensing, data and change questions together. [MAXCONNECT-TECH-002] [MAXCONNECT-MONEY-002] [MAXCONNECT-PAIN-001]
This section is deliberately practical. It gives Max Connect a first map for partner interviews and source-file collection.
The fields Max Connect needs to make legible for an account.
| Decision field | What has to be understood | Known atom basis | Missing input |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platform route | OpenShift footprint, hosting model, operating skills, non-production approach. | MAXCONNECT-TECH-004, 011, 012 | Current estate architecture and skills baseline. |
| Integration route | RMI/API rewrites, object structure security, authentication changes. | MAXCONNECT-TECH-007, 008, 009 | Integration inventory and breakage risk. |
| Data route | Legacy data quality, doclinks, attachments, SAML user conflicts. | MAXCONNECT-PAIN-002, 005; MAXCONNECT-TECH-013 | Migration defects, object counts, cutover constraints. |
| Commercial route | AppPoints model, role tiers, overage/lockout risk, implementation cost. | MAXCONNECT-MONEY-002, 004, 005, 006, 008 | Licensing examples, budget owner, procurement pain. |
| Adoption route | Training gap, daily-user roles, resistance and support model. | MAXCONNECT-PAIN-004; MAXCONNECT-PERSONA-005, 006 | User group notes and operational adoption examples. |
Who needs to believe this is worth a conversation
The buyer map is still red because named-account proof is missing. The useful move now is to separate roles and ask Rich/Andrew which roles they can reach. [MAXCONNECT-PERSONA-002]
Do not turn these into personas as if they are proven. Use them as interview prompts until account evidence lands.
Economic buyer
Cares about asset life, transformation risk, operational continuity and the cost of getting MAS wrong.
Technical decision maker
Evaluates platform, integration, security, privacy, scalability and cutover feasibility.
Daily users
Technicians, inventory clerks, supervisors and reliability engineers who feel workflow disruption first.
Blockers
Cost, skills, complexity and change resistance can kill or delay a MAS move.
Relationship route
Rich Barber and Andrew Carrie should confirm reachable account names, sectors and trust paths.
Target sectors
Asset-intensive sectors need sorting by urgency, reachability and willingness to pay.
The offer options are visible; the priority is not
The atom set contains several plausible wedges. V1 should not pretend to know which one wins. It should put the options in front of people who know the accounts.
The current lead is routefinding because it can combine education, readiness, AppPoints, migration planning and partner matching without claiming delivery capability too early. [MAXCONNECT-OPP-001]
A filled-out first register for V2 prioritisation.
| Wedge | Why it might work | Atom basis | Decision needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Readiness assessment | A narrow diagnostic could surface risk before implementation spend. | MAXCONNECT-OPP-002 | Can an account pay for this before choosing a partner? |
| Education / executive briefing | MAS confusion creates a low-friction first conversation. | MAXCONNECT-OPP-004 | Is education trusted enough to become a paid route? |
| Migration planning map | The customer needs sequence, dependencies and risk before the project starts. | MAXCONNECT-OPP-005 | Where does planning stop and implementation begin? |
| AppPoints analysis | Licensing anxiety gives finance/procurement a concrete reason to engage. | MAXCONNECT-OPP-006 | Do partners have pricing examples and buyer pain? |
| Partner matching | Customers may need independent route selection before committing. | MAXCONNECT-OPP-007 | Can Max Connect stay independent while using partner relationships? |
| Community/media route | Events, groups and content may build trust without cold sales. | MAXCONNECT-OPP-008; MAXCONNECT-CHANNEL-001 | Which channel does Rich/Andrew actually control? |
| Ongoing MAS support | A longer service line may emerge after routefinding. | MAXCONNECT-OPP-009 | Do not lead here until the first paid wedge is proven. |
The next conversation needs sharper evidence
V1 should get Max Connect talking in specifics. Names, budgets, pains, blocked decisions, current partners, procurement owner, proof required. General market attractiveness is not enough.
The discovery work should answer six tests: account truth, pain truth, buyer truth, product truth, proof truth and channel truth. Anything that fails those tests stays out of the offer.
These questions define the first partner discovery pass.
| Test | Question | Evidence needed |
|---|---|---|
| Account truth | Which named Maximo estates can Rich or Andrew reach in the next 30 days? | Account list, relationship owner, path, urgency signal. |
| Pain truth | Which MAS decision is causing the most friction: OpenShift, data, integrations, AppPoints, partner choice or user adoption? | Call notes, account anecdotes, screenshots, procurement or programme artefacts. |
| Buyer truth | Who owns budget and risk for the move to MAS? | Role map across IT, operations, finance, procurement and asset leadership. |
| Product truth | Which narrow product earns a first paid conversation? | Routefinder, AppPoints model, readiness check, partner map or roadmap workshop. |
| Proof truth | What evidence would make a sceptical account take a call? | Before/after examples, cost model, checklist, benchmark or named expert proof. |
| Channel truth | Which events, forums or community routes can create trust without a cold sales motion? | Event calendar, group access, past posts, warm introduction paths. |
Capture these phrases verbatim where possible
- “We already know three accounts…” Write the account names and relationship routes immediately.
- “The scary part is…” Turn the phrase into a pain atom or source note.
- “They would pay for…” Separate willingness to talk from willingness to buy.
- “IBM / partner X is already doing…” Capture competitive or partner boundary evidence.
The notebook needs raw material
The next version should absorb source material into Notebook before copy changes. The pack needs a place for raw files, not another round of polished guesses.
Use the folders below. Keep filenames plain. Add dates where the timing matters. Notes can be rough; the notebook needs signal more than formatting.
/notebook-drop/account-lists/
Named Maximo users, sectors, relationship owners, account notes and reachability status.
/notebook-drop/call-notes/
Rich, Andrew and partner notes. One file per conversation. Mark direct quotes clearly.
/notebook-drop/mas-source-material/
IBM, MAS, AppPoints, OpenShift, partner and community source files.
/notebook-drop/commercial-proof/
Pricing, budget, procurement, business-case and competitor artefacts.
/notebook-drop/events-and-community/
Event lists, forums, group access, past audience proof and content examples.
/notebook-drop/offer-shapes/
Draft propositions, service sketches, checklists, workshop outlines and route maps.
Listen to the current discovery briefing
The NotebookLM audio briefing is included in the pack so a first-time reviewer can hear the discovery frame before or after reading. Treat it as a briefing of the current evidence state, not as a final offer narrative.
Regenerate the audio after Rich/Andrew interviews and source-file absorption; otherwise it will lag the evidence.